Great Compassion, Formless Realms

As a scripture states, one who abides in the concentration of loving-kindness cannot be harmed by blade, poison, water, or fire, and will certainly not meet an untimely death. One asks: for what reason is this so? The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: it is because the concentration of loving-kindness is itself a dharma of non-harming. He speaks, further, as follows: it is because the concentration of loving-kindness possesses great, majestic power. He speaks, further, as follows: it is because the concentration of loving-kindness is cultivated for the benefit of others, and every heaven and every good spirit therefore guards and protects one. He speaks, further, as follows: it is because whoever cultivates dhyāna possesses dhyāna's own domain, and whoever possesses supernormal power possesses supernormal power's own domain, their majestic virtue being beyond ordinary conception. The Great Virtuous One says: whoever abides in the concentration of loving-kindness gives rise to a mind belonging to the superior portion, and it is not a mind of this superior portion that is subject to death and rebirth. He speaks, further, as follows: whoever abides in the concentration of loving-kindness has the great elements of the form realm arise pervading his entire body, causing his own supporting body to become as firm and dense as stone, and it is for this reason that it cannot be harmed. One asks: can the concentrations of compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity, too, be harmed, or not? If they can be harmed, why are they gathered together with the concentration of loving-kindness within the very same immeasurables, and yet the concentration of loving-kindness alone cannot be harmed? If they cannot be harmed, why does the scripture not say so? The answer: one should say as follows — the concentrations of compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity, too, cannot be harmed. One asks: if so, why does this scripture not say so? The answer: it ought to have said so, and its not doing so should be understood as an incomplete statement here. Further, having already spoken of the concentration of loving-kindness, one should understand that the concentrations of compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity, too, have already been spoken of, since they are of the same kind.

Further, the concentration of loving-kindness comes first — speaking of the concentration of loving-kindness, one should understand that the concentrations of compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity, too, have already been spoken of. Further, one who abides in the concentration of compassion and the rest, although he, too, cannot be harmed, still experiences a slight bodily discomfort upon emerging from concentration, unlike the concentration of loving-kindness, and it is for this reason that it alone is singled out. Further, one who abides in the concentration of compassion and the rest, although he, too, cannot be harmed, still suffers some damage to the skin, unlike the concentration of loving-kindness, and it is for this reason that it alone is singled out. Further, the root attainments of compassion and the rest, although they, too, cannot be harmed, may still be injured at the stage of preliminary practice, unlike loving-kindness, and it is for this reason that it alone is singled out. It has been heard that there once was a man who, although he had already attained the desire realm's own preliminary practice for the concentration of loving-kindness, transgressed the king's own law, and the officers of justice, seizing him, brought him before the king, reporting: this man has committed a crime deserving death. At that time the king, riding upon an elephant, was about to leave the city to go on an excursion, and, seeing this, sent someone to examine the king's own law, and, learning what this man had committed, the king himself was to strike him down. The king thereupon flew into a great rage and thrust his spear at him. Seeing this, the man gave rise to a mind of loving-kindness, causing the thrust spear to turn back toward the king himself, and, before it reached the king, it fell to the ground. The king, seeing this, was struck with fear, and asked the condemned man: what art do you possess, that you could accomplish such a thing as this? The man answered: I possess no unusual art whatsoever — seeing the king's own rage, I simply gave rise to a mind of loving-kindness, causing whoever bore an evil intent to be unable to do harm.

The king, on account of this, offered his apology and released him. It is by this that it is known that even the preliminary practice for cultivating loving-kindness cannot be harmed, while compassion and the rest are not so, exactly as a scripture states: cultivating loving-kindness cuts off anger; cultivating compassion cuts off harming; cultivating sympathetic joy cuts off displeasure; cultivating equanimity cuts off both craving and anger. One asks: having already said that both loving-kindness and equanimity counteract anger, what distinction is there in the anger each counteracts? The answer: loving-kindness counteracts the anger that would take a life; equanimity counteracts the anger that would strike and beat.

Further, loving-kindness counteracts anger that arises toward what warrants it; equanimity counteracts anger that arises toward what does not warrant it. One asks: are the immeasurables capable of cutting off affliction, or not? If they are capable, how is a certain statement of the Concentration Aggregate to be reconciled — as it states, loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity are none of them capable of cutting off any fetter whatsoever? If they are not capable, how is this present scripture to be reconciled? The answer: one should say as follows — the immeasurables are not capable of cutting off any affliction whatsoever. One asks: if so, this well reconciles the Concentration Aggregate's own statement — how, then, is this present scripture's own statement to be reconciled? The answer: cutting-off is of two kinds: first, temporary cutting-off; second, ultimate cutting-off. With reference to temporary cutting-off, this scripture speaks of being capable of cutting off; with reference to ultimate cutting-off, the Concentration Aggregate speaks of not cutting off — and, in this way, both the scripture and the treatise are well reconciled. Exactly as with temporary and ultimate cutting-off, so too should partial and non-partial cutting-off, cutting-off with a remaining trace and without a remaining trace, cutting-off with a remainder and without a remainder, cutting-off with continued bondage and without continued bondage, cutting-off of a portion and not of a portion, cutting-off through suppression and cutting-off through uprooting the very root, cutting-off through subduing the entanglement, and cutting-off through harming the latent tendency, be understood in the corresponding manner.

One asks: if the four immeasurables do not cut off affliction, how is a further scripture's own statement to be reconciled — as it states, monks, cultivating the concentration of the mind of loving-kindness, if one does not press onward, one abides in the fruit of the non-returner —

and so on, stated at full length, up through, cultivating the concentration of the mind of equanimity, this too should be understood in the corresponding manner. The answer: that scripture speaks of the noble path itself using the name "concentration of the mind of loving-kindness," and the rest, exactly as, in various scriptures, the Buddha speaks of the noble path sometimes as notion, sometimes as feeling, sometimes as volition, sometimes as intention, sometimes as a lamp, sometimes as faith, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, or wisdom, sometimes as a boat or raft, sometimes as a mountain of rock, sometimes as a flower upon the water — each such instance being cited from scripture, exactly as elsewhere, and that scripture, too, is just the same, speaking of the undefiled path using the words "loving-kindness," and the rest, and this, too, raises no contradiction with principle. Further, as for one who seeks to become free of desire's own defilement by way of the four brahma-abidings of loving-kindness and the rest — such a one may be either an ordinary being or a noble one. If he is an ordinary being, he first becomes free of desire's own defilement, attaining the concentration of loving-kindness and the rest, and only afterward enters the true nature freed from birth, and directly realizes the fruit of the non-returner. If he had not, at that earlier time, already become entirely free of the desire realm's own defilement, and only later entered the true nature freed from birth, he would directly realize instead the fruit of stream-entry or of once-returning — and whoever, among such persons, later directly realizes the fruit of the non-returner does so through the power of loving-kindness and the rest. If he is a noble one, then, at the very time he becomes free of desire's own defilement, he attains both the concentration of loving-kindness and the rest, and the fruit of the non-returner together — and it is on this basis that it is said that cultivating the concentration of loving-kindness and the rest yields the fruit of the non-returner, and this, too, raises no contradiction with principle.

As a scripture states, cultivating the contemplation of impurity is capable of cutting off craving for desire; cultivating the immeasurable of equanimity, too, cuts off craving for desire — what distinction is there between these two? The answer: cultivating the contemplation of impurity counteracts craving for sexual union; cultivating the immeasurable of equanimity counteracts craving for an objective domain. Further, cultivating the contemplation of impurity counteracts craving for visible color; cultivating the immeasurable of equanimity counteracts craving for bodily shape. Further, cultivating the contemplation of impurity counteracts craving for subtle touch; cultivating the immeasurable of equanimity counteracts craving for bearing and countenance. Further, cultivating the contemplation of impurity counteracts craving for appearance and form; cultivating the immeasurable of equanimity counteracts craving for the sentient being itself. Such, then, is the distinction.

As a scripture states, together with loving-kindness one cultivates the limb of enlightenment that is mindfulness, relying upon seclusion, relying upon freedom from desire, relying upon cessation, and turning toward relinquishment — compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity are stated in the corresponding manner. One asks: the immeasurables are contaminated, while the limbs of enlightenment are undefiled — how can the contaminated and the undefiled arise together? The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: it is by means of the four immeasurables that the mind is tamed and subdued, made upright and capable, and it is immediately from this that the limbs of enlightenment are drawn forth and arise; and it is immediately from the limbs of enlightenment that the immeasurables, in turn, are drawn forth and arise — the immeasurables and the limbs of enlightenment thus arising interspersed with one another,

and it is for this reason that they are spoken of as arising together, though, in reality, they do not arise simultaneously.

One asks: among the four immeasurables, which is supreme? There are those who say: loving-kindness is supreme, for what reason is this so? Because it cannot be harmed. Other masters say: compassion is supreme, for what reason is this so? Because the Buddha, through great compassion, expounds the true dharma. There are those who say: sympathetic joy is supreme, for what reason is this so? Because it cuts off displeasure. There are those who say: equanimity is supreme, for what reason is this so? Because it cuts off both craving and anger. The Great Virtuous One says: owing to two causes and conditions, equanimity is supreme — first, owing to what it accomplishes, namely, that cultivating equanimity is capable of cutting off both craving and anger; second, owing to its tranquility, namely, that it turns without any discrimination whatsoever with respect to sentient beings — and it is for this reason that equanimity is supreme.

One asks: for what reason does the World-Honored One speak only of great compassion, and not of great loving-kindness, great sympathetic joy, or great equanimity? The answer: every one of these ought indeed to be spoken of as great, since every merit within the Buddha's own body is itself great, arising from a mind that wishes to benefit immeasurable sentient beings, that wishes to rescue immeasurable sentient beings, that wishes to have compassion for immeasurable sentient beings, turning with an equal, wholesome mind continuously toward every sentient being without exception. Yet one ought not to raise this very question here, for what reason is this so? If compassion's own own-nature were itself identical with great compassion's own own-nature, this question could indeed be raised — yet compassion and great compassion each possess their own distinct own-nature, and it is for this reason that this question ought not to be raised at all. And yet, within various scriptures, there do exist passages that speak of great loving-kindness, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity as well.

One asks: what distinction is there between compassion and great compassion? The answer: they differ in name alone — that one is named compassion, this one is named great compassion. Further, compassion takes the wholesome root of non-hatred as its own-nature; great compassion takes the wholesome root of non-delusion as its own-nature. Further, compassion counteracts the unwholesome root of hatred; great compassion counteracts the unwholesome root of delusion. Further, compassion exists within all four dhyānas; great compassion exists solely within the fourth dhyāna. Further, compassion is gathered within the immeasurables; great compassion is not gathered within the immeasurables. Further, compassion is possessed by both ordinary beings and nobles alike; great compassion is possessed solely by the nobles. Further, compassion is possessed by disciples, solitary-realizers, and buddhas alike; great compassion is possessed solely by the Buddha. Further, compassion is merely capable of pitying, without being capable of rescuing; great compassion is capable both of pitying and of rescuing — exactly as there are two men standing upon the bank of a great river, seeing a certain person drowning in the water: one merely wrings his hands and cries out in pity, without being able to save him — compassion, too, is just the same;

the other, moved by pity, casts himself into the water and rescues him — great compassion, too, is just the same. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: compassion takes only sentient beings suffering within the desire realm as its object; great compassion takes sentient beings suffering within all three realms as its object. He speaks, further, as follows: compassion takes only sentient beings afflicted by coarse suffering as its object; great compassion takes sentient beings afflicted by both coarse and subtle suffering as its object. He speaks, further, as follows: compassion takes only sentient beings afflicted by the suffering of suffering as its object; great compassion takes sentient beings afflicted by all three kinds of suffering as its object. He speaks, further, as follows: compassion takes only sentient beings afflicted by bodily suffering as its object; great compassion takes sentient beings afflicted by both bodily and mental suffering as its object. He speaks, further, as follows: compassion takes only sentient beings afflicted by suffering of the present dharma as its object; great compassion takes sentient beings afflicted by suffering of both the present dharma and a later dharma as its object. He speaks, further, as follows: compassion takes only sentient beings afflicted by proximate suffering as its object; great compassion takes sentient beings afflicted by both proximate and distant suffering as its object. He speaks, further, as follows: compassion takes only sentient beings afflicted by present suffering as its object; great compassion takes sentient beings afflicted by suffering across all three times as its object. The Great Virtuous One says: great compassion is the Buddha's own fourth dhyāna, an unshared abiding dharma, capable of following at a distance, following in subtlety, and following comprehensively, turning equally with respect to the enemy, the beloved, and the neutral among every kind of sentient being alike; compassion is equally possessed by ordinary beings, disciples, and solitary-realizers alike, and is certainly incapable of taking the form and formless realms as its object. Such, then, is the distinction between compassion and great compassion.

One asks: for what reason is it named great compassion? The answer: it is because it rescues sentient beings from great suffering that it is named great compassion — as for great suffering: this refers to the suffering found within the hells, the animal realm, and the realm of ghosts. Further, it is because it rescues sentient beings sinking within the mire of the three poisons, setting them upon the noble path and its fruit, that it is named great compassion. Further, it is because it gathers in sentient beings through matters of great benefit and great ease and pleasure that it is named great compassion —

that is, causing sentient beings to cultivate the three excellent modes of conduct, of body, speech, and mind, drawing forth an honored birth, abundant wealth and treasure, a dignified form and appearance beloved and respected by all, and the fruit of a wheel-turning monarch, of Śakra, or even of Māra, the lord of demons, and planting the seed of enlightenment for any of the three vehicles — every such matter as this arising from great compassion.

Further, it is because it is obtained at a great price that it is named great compassion — unlike the enlightenment of a solitary-realizer or a disciple, which, by a single meal offered on a single fast-day to a single person,

together with the giving rise of a supreme aspiration, is already said to have planted the seed of that very enlightenment, and, by this cause proceeding onward through many further lives, that enlightenment is finally obtained — great compassion, by contrast, requires that, over a long span of time, in every place and by every means, the finest and most excellent implements of pleasure be given to every kind of sentient being, without the slightest reluctance even with respect to one's own body and life, and it is only by giving rise, in this way, to a supreme aspiration, that the seed of great compassion is said to be planted, and, by this cause proceeding onward through many further lives, great compassion is finally obtained. Further, it is because it is obtained through great preliminary practice that it is named great compassion — unlike a disciple's own enlightenment, obtained through cultivating preliminary practice for a mere sixty aeons alone, or a solitary-realizer's own enlightenment, obtained through cultivating preliminary practice for a mere hundred aeons alone — the Thus-Come One's own great compassion is obtained only after cultivating a hundred thousand difficult and arduous practices across three incalculable aeons,

and it is for this reason that it is named great compassion. Further, it is because it depends upon a great body that it is named great compassion — unlike a solitary-realizer's or a disciple's own enlightenment, which may manifest even in dependence upon an inferior body — great compassion requires a body adorned with the thirty-two marks of a great personage, its limbs embellished with the eighty minor marks, its body the color of true gold, its aureole extending a fathom, and one never wearies of gazing upon it — it is only in dependence upon such a body as this that great compassion manifests, and it is for this reason that it is named great compassion. Further, it is because it relinquishes the very bliss of the great dharma that it is named great compassion — that is, the Buddha relinquishes the very finest, most sublime, perfect, pure, and unshared bliss of the dharma, repeatedly traversing immeasurable hundreds of thousands of koṭis of encircling mountain-ranges to expound the dharma for others, never once wearying of the toil, and it is for this reason that it is named great compassion. Further, it is because, by this very force, the great sage is caused to perform deeds most difficult to perform, that it is named great compassion — that is, the World-Honored One, for the sake of sentient beings, relinquishes his own honored and eminent station, becoming, at times, a potter, at times a strongman, at times a musician, at times a hunter, at times a courtesan, at times a beggar; he leads Nanda through the whole of the five destinies, and manifests himself both near and far to convert Aṅgulimāla; though possessed of shame and moral dread, he manifests the hidden, sheathed mark for the sake of converting a certain woman; though free of restlessness, he manifests the broad, long tongue for the sake of converting sentient beings — performing every such most difficult deed as this,

and it is for this reason that it is named great compassion. Further, it is because, by this very force, the great mountain of equanimity is moved, unable to remain settled, that it is named great compassion. The Buddha possesses two unshared abiding dharmas: first, great equanimity; second, great compassion. When the Buddha's own great equanimity manifests before him, even were every sentient being in every world to be burning like a bundle of dry firewood, though the Buddha stood directly before them, he would not so much as look upon them; yet, when great compassion arises, even the sight of but a single sentient being undergoing suffering — though his body, nārāyaṇa-like, is utterly firm and difficult to move — sways him exactly as a fierce wind sways a banana leaf, and it is by meanings such as these that it is named great compassion. The Vinaya states: the Buddha, with his universal loving-kindness, shelters and shades sentient beings, and thereby expounds the dharma to them. One asks: at the very time sentient beings are sheltered and shaded by the Buddha's own universal loving-kindness, do they thereby attain pleasure, or not? If they attain pleasure, why do the beings of the hells, the animal realm, and the realm of ghosts,

and every other sentient being afflicted by suffering and hardship, remain unfree of suffering even while sheltered and shaded by the Buddha's own loving-kindness? If they do not attain pleasure, how is a certain verse's own statement to be reconciled? As it is said:

'Spirits and demons, with an evil intent, wish to approach a man; though they have not yet touched or harmed his body, he has already given rise to suffering and dread.' An evil intent directed toward a person already causes suffering and dread — how, then, could the Buddha's own mind, sheltering and shading with loving-kindness, possibly fail to bring about pleasure? There are those who say: the Buddha, sheltering and shading sentient beings with his universal loving-kindness, does indeed cause them to attain pleasure. One asks: if so, this well reconciles the verse's own statement — how, then, is the difficulty raised before to be resolved? The answer: the Buddha observes whether a sentient being's own karma is capable of being altered — if it is capable, his universal loving-kindness, taking that being as its object, thereupon causes him to attain pleasure; if he observes that a being's own karma is incapable of being altered, the Buddha does not take that being as the object of his universal loving-kindness. There are those who say: although the Buddha shelters and shades sentient beings with his universal loving-kindness, sentient beings do not thereby immediately attain pleasure. One asks: if so, this well reconciles the difficulty raised before — how, then, is the verse's own statement to be reconciled? The answer: it is because the Buddha, sheltering and shading others with his universal loving-kindness, manifests every kind of matter, that pleasure is thereby caused to arise at all — spirits and demons, too, must manifest some fearsome matter before they can cause suffering and dread, this not being brought about by mere intention alone. As for the various matters the World-Honored One manifests: he manifests supernormal power, or manifests a pleasing event, or manifests fine medicine, or manifests a fine touch, or manifests the shadow of bliss — the kinds of matter thus manifested being exceedingly numerous. As for manifesting supernormal power: it has been heard that the Buddha, dwelling at the Bamboo Grove Monastery beside the Kalandaka Pool in the great city of Rājagṛha, was once invited by a certain householder, together with the monastic assembly, to come to his house and hold a great almsgiving ceremony. In the early part of the day, the Buddha donned his robe and took up his bowl, and, together with the assembly of monks, entered the city of Rājagṛha. King Ajātaśatru's own evil friend Devadatta, having incited and instructed the wealth-guardian elephant, caused it, in an extreme fit of drunken rage, to seek to harm the Thus-Come One. The Thus-Come One thereupon extended his right hand, and, from the tips of his five fingers, conjured five lions — the elephant, seeing this, was struck with terror and turned back to flee. The Buddha then, behind it, conjured a great pit, this pit being, in both depth and breadth, a hundred thousand cubits.

The elephant, seeing this, grew still more terrified, and looked about to either side — the Buddha, to its left and right, conjured towering walls, both threatening to collapse and crush it. The elephant, seeing this, grew still more alarmed and afraid, and looked up into the empty sky — the Buddha, in the sky above, conjured a great stone, encircled by fierce flames, about to fall. The elephant, seeing this, grew still more terrified and confused, looking wildly about in every direction — the Buddha then, in every place, conjured a fierce fire, only the ground beneath the Buddha's own feet remaining cool and tranquil. The elephant, having seen all this, its own drunken mind awakened and sobered.

The Buddha, knowing it was now tamed and subdued, dispelled the five lions. The elephant came forward and stroked the World-Honored One's own feet with its trunk, and the Buddha, with his own hand, adorned with the mark of a hundred merits, stroked the elephant's own head, and then, in the elephant's own language, expounded the dharma to it: every formation is impermanent, every dharma is without self, nirvāṇa is tranquil — you should give rise, toward me, to a mind of reverence and faith, and, before long, you will certainly attain freedom from the animal realm. The elephant, having heard the dharma, gave rise to a mind of reverence and faith, and, becoming weary and disenchanted with its own elephant-body, no longer ate or drank, and, at the ending of its life, was reborn among the Thirty-Three Gods, and, mindful of the Buddha's own kindness, came to where the Buddha was; the Buddha, for its sake, expounded the dharma, and it beheld the four noble truths, paid homage to the Buddha, and returned to its own heavenly palace. At that time, people everywhere said that it was owing to the Buddha's own sheltering loving-kindness that the wealth-guardian elephant's drunken frenzy was sobered and it was reborn in heaven.

Here, this sheltering loving-kindness refers to the manifesting of supernormal power. The Buddha, on a further occasion, again manifested supernormal power. It has been heard that, when the Buddha was about to enter final nirvāṇa, he wandered to the town of the Mallas, arriving at Pāpā village, and dwelt beside that village, within the Sāla forest. The Mallas, hearing of this, gathered together and deliberated, saying: we ought all together to go to where the Buddha is — whoever does not go shall be fined five hundred ancient gold coins, to be used for the town's own purposes. At that time, there was a certain Malla wrestler named Roca, wealthy and of high renown, whose own mind held no faith in the Buddha, and who secretly reflected: it is not that I begrudge the money, but I cannot violate my own friends' agreement — and so he went, together with the people of the town, to where the Buddha was, bowed his head at the Buddha's own feet, and withdrew to stand to one side. At that time, the Venerable Ānanda said to Roca:

it is truly excellent that you have come to see the Buddha, since this unsurpassed field of merit will, before long, enter the great Sāla forest and pass into final cessation. Roca, being straightforward by nature, told Ānanda plainly: I have come to see the Buddha not by my own heart's own wish, but only because I could not violate my friends' agreement. Ānanda, taking Roca by the arm, drew him forward to where the Buddha was, and said to the Buddha: this Malla wrestler Roca has no faith in the Three Jewels — I only ask that the World-Honored One expound the essentials of the dharma for him. The Buddha reflected: this man, given to attachment, is deeply attached to the five objects of desire — were I to expound the dharma to him now, he would be unable, in this brief time, to understand it. The Buddha, out of compassion for him, thereupon manifested supernormal power, conjuring a great pit, filled with corpses and excrement, its foul smoke and vapor rising, a fierce fire blazing within it, from which a voice emerged, saying: Roca the Malla wrestler, if you do not believe in the Buddha and heed the dharma, you are certain, at the ending of your life, to be reborn here. Roca, seeing and hearing this, his body and mind trembling with fear, at once took refuge in the Buddha. The Buddha then expounded the dharma to him, and, his mind having given rise to faith, he thereupon received the three refuges. At that time, people everywhere said that it was owing to the Buddha's own sheltering loving-kindness that the Malla wrestler Roca was caused to have faith in the Three Jewels — here, this sheltering loving-kindness refers to the manifesting of supernormal power. As for manifesting a pleasing event: it has been heard that the Buddha, dwelling at Mithilā town, within the Amra grove of the Great Sovereign God, there was a brahmin's wife named Vāsiṣṭhī, who, having lost her six sons, her mind thereupon became deranged, and, longing after her sons, she ran about with her body exposed, and, by chance, came to enter this very Amra grove, and, from a distance, beheld the World-Honored One, surrounded by many hundreds of thousands of people,

before and behind him, expounding the dharma. Seeing the Buddha, the deranged woman was, by the very nature of things, at once restored to her senses, and, overcome with shame, she bent her body and sat down. At that time, the Buddha told the Venerable Ānanda: take a robe and give it to this brahmin's wife — I wish to expound the essential dharma for her. Ānanda, receiving this instruction, took a robe and gave it to her, and, having put it on, she bowed to the Buddha and sat down. The Buddha reflected: this Vāsiṣṭhī's own mind is sunk within an ocean of grief — even were buddhas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges to expound the dharma to her now, she would still be unable to understand it. The Buddha, out of compassion for her, thereupon manifested supernormal power, conjuring her six sons standing before her — seeing them, she was filled with joy, and her grief and sorrow thereupon subsided. The Buddha then expounded the dharma to her, and she beheld the four noble truths. At that time, people everywhere said that it was owing to the Buddha's own sheltering loving-kindness that this Vāsiṣṭhī, her derangement sobered, beheld the truths — here, this sheltering loving-kindness refers to the manifesting of a pleasing event. The Buddha, on a further occasion, again manifested a pleasing event. It has been heard that the Buddha, having gone to the kingdom of Śrāvastī, dwelt at Jetavana, in the garden of Anāthapiṇḍada — there was a certain brahmin whose rice paddy, having ripened, was about to be harvested, and who had set his one son to guard it; suddenly there came a disaster of hail, the field was destroyed, and the son perished. The brahmin went mad with grief, and ran about with his body exposed, and, by chance, came to enter this very Jetavana grove, and, from a distance, beheld the World-Honored One, surrounded by many hundreds of thousands of people, before and behind him, expounding the dharma. Seeing the Buddha, the deranged man was, by the very nature of things, at once restored to his senses, and he came forward, bowed at the Buddha's own feet, and withdrew to sit to one side. The Buddha reflected: this brahmin's own mind is sunk within an ocean of grief — even were buddhas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges to expound the dharma to him now, he would still be unable to understand it. The Buddha, out of compassion for him, thereupon manifested supernormal power, conjuring the rice paddy and his own beloved son — seeing them, he was filled with joy, and his grief and sorrow thereupon subsided. The Buddha then expounded the dharma to him, and he beheld the four noble truths. At that time, people everywhere said that it was owing to the Buddha's own sheltering loving-kindness that this brahmin, his derangement sobered, beheld the truths — here, this sheltering loving-kindness refers to the manifesting of a pleasing event. As for manifesting fine medicine: it has been heard that the World-Honored One, wandering through the town of Kāśi, made his way by stages to Vārāṇasī, and dwelt at the Deer Park, at the place where the sages descend. There was a householder named Mahāsena, whose wife was likewise named Mahāsena, and this husband and wife, both alike, held faith in the Three Jewels, constantly offering every necessity to the Buddha and to the monastic assembly. There was a certain monk who had taken an emetic and a purgative, and, having taken too much of the purge, had thereby brought on a wind-based debility; the physician's own prescription required that he take some meat broth.

At that time, the one caring for him went to the householder's own home and told the householder's wife of this very matter in full. The householder's wife sent a servant with money to the market to buy meat. At that time, the king of that country, named Brahmadatta, had just had a son born to him, and, in his joy, had proclaimed throughout the whole city a single day's prohibition on killing, and so the servant, searching the whole city over, could find no meat to be had. The householder's wife, learning of this, reflected: I have offered every necessity to the Buddha and the monastic assembly, and now this sick monk requires meat broth as medicine, and, since none can now be obtained, he may well die on this account. She further reflected: the World-Honored One, in his own former bodhisattva stage, gave up his own body's own flesh many times over to save another's life — I, too, ought now to learn from the bodhisattva's own conduct. She thereupon entered a quiet room, took up a sharp knife in her own hand, and cut the flesh from her own thigh, giving it to the servant,

so that he might prepare a meat broth to offer the sick monk. The sick man, receiving it, gave the matter no further thought, and, taking the broth, was cured of his own affliction. At that time, the householder's wife, oppressed by the pain of her own wound, lay groaning within her room, unable to find rest. The householder, returning from outside, asked where she was, and his own household told him the whole matter that had come before. He entered the room and, seeing his wife groaning, thereupon gave rise to anger, saying: you śramaṇas, sons of the Śākyas, are utterly without shame or moral dread — how could you accept an offering with so little regard for what is fitting? Giving, though it should know no satiety, still ought to be received with a sense of proper measure. He set out at once for where the Buddha was, wishing to report this matter to the World-Honored One, but, just as he arrived, the Thus-Come One happened to be expounding the dharma to the assembly, and, gazing upon the Buddha's own venerable countenance, his own angry mind at once subsided, and he secretly reflected: I ought not yet to report this to the Buddha — I should first invite the Buddha and the monastic assembly, and only then, having returned home, report the matter in full. He thereupon came forward, bowed to the Buddha, and withdrew to sit to one side. Once the Buddha had finished expounding the dharma, he rose at once from his seat and invited the Buddha and the assembly to receive an offering the following day. The Buddha, understanding the intent of this invitation, silently assented. The householder returned home and, through the night, prepared the offering.

In the morning, he arranged the seats and sent a messenger to inform the Buddha that the offering was prepared, and that it was now for the Sage himself to know the time was right. The World-Honored One, in the early part of the day, donned his robe and took up his bowl, and, together with the monastic assembly, went to the householder's own home, where a seat had been arranged for him, and he sat down. Knowing full well, he nonetheless asked: where is the mistress of this house? The householder answered: she is within her room, suffering from illness. The Buddha told the householder: you should go and tell her that the greatly compassionate World-Honored One now summons her. The Buddha not only comprehends the internal principle of dependent origination, but is also well able to know the external workings of causes and conditions, and thereupon, by his own supernormal power, drew forth from the fragrant mountains a medicine for healing wounds made by the blade, and, applying and spreading it upon her wound, caused her pain to cease at once, her body restored just as it had been before. The householder entered the room and told his wife: the greatly compassionate World-Honored One now summons you. His wife said: the Buddha's own power is beyond ordinary conception — no sooner had I heard that the World-Honored One had summoned you than the pain of my own wound ceased, and my body was restored just as it had been before! Husband and wife, overjoyed, redoubled their own reverent faith, and together went to where the Buddha was, bowing their heads at his own two feet. The Buddha then expounded the dharma to them, and both alike beheld the noble truths.

At that time, people everywhere said that it was owing to the Buddha's own sheltering loving-kindness that the householder Mahāsena and his wife had their own wound healed and beheld the truths — here, this sheltering loving-kindness refers to the manifesting of fine medicine. The Buddha, on a further occasion, again manifested fine medicine. In the past, King Prasenajit had cut off the hands and feet of a certain bandit, casting him into a moat surrounding the city. The World-Honored One, at that time, having donned his robe and taken up his bowl, was about to enter the city to beg for food, and this bandit, seeing the Buddha, cried out in a loud voice, saying: I beg only that the World-Honored One take pity and rescue me from my own suffering. The Buddha, not only comprehending the internal principle of dependent origination, but also being well able to know the external workings of causes and conditions, thereupon, by his own supernormal power, drew forth from the fragrant mountains a medicine for healing wounds made by the blade,

applying and spreading it upon his wound, causing his pain to cease at once, and then expounding the dharma to him. The bandit, having heard the dharma, beheld the four noble truths. At that time, people everywhere said that even this evil bandit, owing to the Buddha's own sheltering loving-kindness, had his suffering stilled and beheld the truths — here, this sheltering loving-kindness refers to the manifesting of fine medicine. As for manifesting a fine touch: it has been heard that the Buddha dwelt to the south of Vulture Peak, while Devadatta dwelt to the north of Vulture Peak, suffering, day and night, from a headache so severe he could neither sleep nor eat. Ānanda, taking pity on him, reported this in full to the World-Honored One. The Buddha extended his right hand, exactly as the trunk of a lordly elephant, piercing through Vulture Peak itself, and stroked Devadatta's own head, manifesting a fine and subtle touch, and uttered these words of sincere truth: my own mind holds compassion and pity for Devadatta, no different from my own regard for Rāhula — may Devadatta's own headache cease at once. Devadatta's headache, at these very words, ceased at once, and he thereupon looked about, reflecting: whose hand was it that touched me? Learning that it was the Buddha's own hand, he then spoke these words: he who is well versed in the medical arts may indeed sustain his own life. At that time, people everywhere said that even Devadatta himself, owing to the Buddha's own sheltering loving-kindness, had his headache removed —

here, this sheltering loving-kindness refers to the manifesting of a fine touch. The Buddha, on a further occasion, again manifested a fine touch. It has been heard that the World-Honored One, going about from cell to cell, came to a certain cell and saw a monk lying ill amid his own excrement, unable to rise or move. Seeing the Buddha, he wept aloud and said to him: World-Honored One, I now have no refuge and no one to save me. The World-Honored One told him: having gone forth from household life, do you not, then, take refuge in the compassionate father of the three realms? He answered: this is indeed so. The Buddha further told him: how, then, can you say that you have no refuge and no one to save you? Have you yourself ever tended a sick monk? He answered: I have not. The Buddha said: it is fitting, then, that others do not look after you. The World-Honored One then, with his own hands, supported the sick monk, removed his soiled garments and set them aside, and, further, with a bamboo strip, scraped away the excrement and filth clinging to his own limbs, applied and rubbed white clay upon his body, and, as the heavenly lord poured out water, bathed him in it; he further spread cow dung upon the floor of the cell, laid down fresh new grass, and helped him to sit in comfort upon it; he washed the soiled garments and dried them in the sun so that he might wear them again; the Buddha then divided his own portion of food and gave it to him to eat, and, with his hand, adorned with the mark of merit and finely subtle to the touch, stroked the top of his head, whereupon his suffering and illness were at once cured. The Buddha then expounded the dharma to him, and he attained the state of an arhat. At that time, people everywhere said that even this sick monk, owing to the Buddha's own sheltering loving-kindness, had his illness removed and attained the fruit — here, this sheltering loving-kindness refers to the manifesting of a fine touch. As for manifesting the shadow of bliss: it has been heard that the World-Honored One was once walking together with Śāriputra, when there was a bird being pursued by a hawk, and, in its terror and haste, it flew to take refuge within Śāriputra's own shadow, yet its fear did not subside, and its whole body still trembled violently.

It then took refuge within the Buddha's own shadow instead, and its body and mind became entirely at ease. At that time, Śāriputra, joining his palms, said to the Buddha: how is it that this bird, taking refuge within my own shadow, still felt fear, yet, the very moment it came within the Buddha's own shadow, its mind knew no alarm and its body no trembling? The World-Honored One told him: you have cultivated a mind of non-harming for sixty aeons; I have cultivated a mind of non-harming across three great, incalculable aeons. You still retain the habitual tendency toward harming; I have already forever cut it off, and it is for this reason that things are just as they are.

At that time, people everywhere said that even this small bird, owing to the Buddha's own sheltering loving-kindness, had its fear removed — here, this sheltering loving-kindness refers to the manifesting of the shadow of bliss. The Buddha, on a further occasion, again manifested the shadow of bliss. It has been heard that the foolish and violent Virūḍhaka destroyed the kingdom of Kapilavastu, which had been like a heavenly palace, slaughtering the Śākya clan and plundering their treasures, and carried off five hundred Śākya women, returning with them to the kingdom of Śrāvastī. Ascending together with them to a high terrace, he boasted arrogantly of his own prowess, proud of his Śākya lineage, saying: I have now finished slaying them all. The Śākya women replied: the Śākya clan, restrained and guarded by their own precepts, allowed you to slaughter them so. Virūḍhaka, hearing this, flew into a great rage, thinking that these Śākya women still harbored pride, and had the hands and feet of every one of them cut off, casting them into the moat surrounding the city. The Śākya women, at that time, oppressed by their own suffering and pain,

each fixed their own thoughts upon the Buddha, praying for his compassionate regard. The Buddha, knowing their own thoughts, drawn by great compassion, in the space of a single bending-and-stretching of the arm, arrived at the very place where they were, and, mindful of Śakra, lord of the gods, bade him bring garments to cover them, while he himself emitted his own bodily radiance to illuminate these Śākya women. The Śākya women, receiving this covering and this radiance, had their own suffering and pain entirely removed, their bodies and minds made peaceful and at ease, and the Buddha then expounded the dharma to them, and they all beheld the noble truths, and, at the ending of their lives, were reborn among the exquisite Thirty-Three Gods. People everywhere said that it was owing to the Buddha's own sheltering loving-kindness that even these Śākya women all obtained benefit and ease — here, this sheltering loving-kindness refers to the manifesting of the shadow of bliss. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that it is not the sheltering loving-kindness alone that directly brings about pleasure.

As a scripture states, cultivating loving-kindness culminates, at its very furthest reach, in the Heaven of Universal Purity; cultivating compassion culminates, at its very furthest reach, in the sphere of infinite space; cultivating sympathetic joy culminates, at its very furthest reach, in the sphere of infinite consciousness; cultivating equanimity culminates, at its very furthest reach, in the sphere of nothingness. One asks: that cultivating loving-kindness culminates, at its very furthest reach, in the Heaven of Universal Purity — this much may well be so, since one obtains that very fruit, being bound to that very ground. But how can it possibly be so that cultivating the three remaining immeasurables culminates, at their very furthest reach, in the lower three formless attainments? How could form-realm wholesome karma possibly draw forth a formless fruit? The answer: there are those who say: this statement is exceedingly profound, and it is only when Maitreya descends and is born among us that this meaning will be understood. Others, further, say: the Venerable Śāntamati is capable of understanding this meaning — but, at the very time the master who composed this root treatise wished to compose it, this venerable one happened to be in concentration, and could not be consulted. Other masters say: the Buddha, observing the fitness of those to be converted, judged it best to speak of the immeasurables using the language of the formless, and only thereby would they be able to awaken and understand — and it was for this reason that he spoke in this way, exactly as, in speaking of the liberations, he speaks using the language of the eight directions. There are those who say: here, the Buddha, with respect to the third dhyāna, speaks of the limb of enlightenment that serves as the antidote to the lower three formless attainments using the names of loving-kindness and the rest, and it is for this reason that this raises no contradiction with principle. There are further masters who say: it is because of a resemblance that he speaks in this way — that is, the immeasurable of loving-kindness turns with the aspect of pleasure, and pleasant feeling reaches its own furthest extent within the third dhyāna; the immeasurable of compassion turns with the aspect of suffering, and, wherever form exists, there exist such various sufferings as the cutting off of hands and feet, and the sphere of infinite space, reproaching every form, resembles the very aspect of compassion.

The immeasurable of sympathetic joy turns with the aspect of joy, and the sphere of infinite consciousness, taking delight in consciousness, resembles the very aspect of sympathetic joy. The immeasurable of equanimity turns with the aspect of setting aside,

and the sphere of nothingness, characterized by extensive relinquishment, resembles the very aspect of equanimity, and it is on the basis of this resemblance that the language of the immeasurables is used. Further, this is spoken with reference to arriving at a pleasant abiding — that is, one who delights in cultivating loving-kindness, becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement, gives rise to the mind of the pure first dhyāna, yet his mind does not delight in abiding there, and, seeking further advancement, becomes free of the first dhyāna's own defilement and gives rise to the second dhyāna, and this, too, is just the same; only upon becoming free of the second dhyāna's own defilement and giving rise to the third dhyāna does his mind come to delight in abiding there. One who delights in cultivating compassion, becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement up through the third dhyāna's own defilement, gives rise to the fourth dhyāna, yet his mind does not delight in abiding there, and, seeking further advancement, becomes free of the fourth dhyāna's own defilement and gives rise to the sphere of infinite space, and only then does his mind come to delight in abiding there. One who delights in cultivating sympathetic joy, becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement up through the fourth dhyāna's own defilement, gives rise to the sphere of infinite space, yet his mind does not delight in abiding there, and, seeking further advancement, becomes free of the sphere of infinite space's own defilement and gives rise to the sphere of infinite consciousness, and only then does his mind come to delight in abiding there. One who delights in cultivating equanimity, becoming free of the desire realm's own defilement up through the sphere of infinite space's own defilement, gives rise to the sphere of infinite consciousness, yet his mind does not delight in abiding there, and, seeking further advancement, becomes free of the sphere of infinite consciousness's own defilement and gives rise to the sphere of nothingness, and only then does his mind come to delight in abiding there.

It is with reference to this arriving at a pleasant abiding that the language of the immeasurables is used. Further, this is spoken with reference to mutual accordance of continuity — that is, the desire realm's own outflow drawn forth by loving-kindness accords with the third dhyāna; the desire realm's own outflow drawn forth by the third dhyāna accords with loving-kindness, and so on, stated at full length, up through, the desire realm's own outflow drawn forth by equanimity accords with the sphere of nothingness; the desire realm's own outflow drawn forth by the sphere of nothingness accords with equanimity, and it is with reference to this mutual accordance that the language of the immeasurables is used. Further, it is in order to counter the outsiders' own notion of liberation with respect to the formless realm that the language of the immeasurables is used with respect to the formless, displaying that the entirety of the formless realm is, like the immeasurables themselves, no genuine liberation at all — it is for this reason that the Venerable Ghoṣa speaks as follows: the various outsiders, deluded with respect to the formless realm, cling to it as liberation,

and it is for this reason that the Buddha, with respect to it, uses the language of the immeasurables, displaying that it merely resembles the immeasurables and is not genuine liberation at all.

As for the four formless attainments: this refers to the sphere of infinite space, the sphere of infinite consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, and the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to put a stop to what other schools maintain, and to display the correct principle — that is, there are those who hold that the formless realm possesses form, such as the Vibhajyavādins, and others who hold that the formless realm possesses no form whatsoever, such as the Proponents of Correct Reasoning. One asks: on what scriptural authority and reasoning do the Vibhajyavādins hold that the formless realm, too, possesses form? The answer: they rely upon scripture — that is, a scripture states that name-and-form conditions consciousness, and consciousness conditions name-and-form.

Since the formless realm indeed possesses consciousness, it ought likewise to possess name-and-form. A further scripture states that lifespan, warmth, and consciousness, these three, are forever joined together and never separated, admitting of no designation of separation or distinction whatsoever — since the formless realm indeed possesses lifespan and consciousness, it ought likewise to possess warmth. A further scripture states that, apart from form, feeling, perception, and formations, one ought not to speak of consciousness as possessing any coming, going, abiding, dying, or being born — since the formless realm does indeed possess consciousness, it ought likewise to fully possess all four stations of consciousness. A further, more searching difficulty is raised: if the formless realm possesses no form whatsoever, then, when a being dies within the desire or form realm and is reborn within the formless realm, remaining there for twenty thousand, forty thousand, sixty thousand, or eighty thousand aeons, with every form entirely cut off, how, when he later dies there and is reborn once more within the desire or form realm, does form arise there again at all? If form, once cut off, is still capable of arising once more, then, once final nirvāṇa has been attained and the formations have thereby ceased, they, too, ought then to be capable of arising once more at some later time — lest such a fault as this be incurred, the formless realm must certainly possess form. One asks: on what scriptural authority and reasoning do the Proponents of Correct Reasoning hold that the formless realm possesses no form whatsoever? The answer: they rely upon scripture — that is, a scripture states that the form realm transcends the desire realm, and the formless realm transcends form, while tranquil nirvāṇa transcends the conditioned altogether — since it is stated that the formless realm transcends form, the formless realm must certainly possess no form whatsoever. A further scripture states that, at the time one enters a dhyāna, one observes every form, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness alike as a sickness, as a boil, and so on, stated at full length; at the time one enters a formless attainment, one observes only feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness alike as a sickness, as a boil, and so on, stated at full length — and it is thereby known that the formless realm certainly possesses no form whatsoever. A further scripture states that the formless attainments are tranquil and liberated, transcending every form — and it is thereby known that the formless realm certainly possesses no form whatsoever. A further scripture states that one transcends every notion of form, extinguishes every notion of resistance, and, no longer giving mental application to any manifold notion whatsoever, enters boundless space, one dwells having fully attained the sphere of infinite space — and it is thereby known that the formless realm certainly possesses no form whatsoever. A further, more searching difficulty is raised: if the formless realm still possessed form, there would then be no dharma admitting of gradual cessation; and, were there no dharma admitting of gradual cessation, there would then be no dharma admitting of ultimate cessation either; and, were there no dharma admitting of ultimate cessation, there would then be no liberation, no renunciation, and no nirvāṇa — lest such a fault as this be incurred, the formless realm must certainly possess no form whatsoever. One asks: between these two statements, which is the sound one? The answer: what the Proponents of Correct Reasoning state is the sound one. One asks: how do the Proponents of Correct Reasoning explain and reconcile the scriptures cited by the Vibhajyavādins? The answer: the scriptures they cite are of provisional, non-definitive meaning, being a provisional designation with some further intent behind it, for what reason is this so?

Because the Thus-Come One's own teaching of the dharma is sometimes given with reference to the desire realm, sometimes with reference to the form realm, sometimes with reference to the formless realm, sometimes with reference to both the desire and form realms, sometimes with reference to both the form and formless realms, sometimes with reference to all three realms, and sometimes with reference to what transcends all three realms altogether. As for what is given with reference to the desire realm: this refers, as it is said, to the three realms, the three deliberations, and the three notions —

namely, desire, malice, and harm. As for what is given with reference to the form realm: this refers, as it is said, to the four dhyānas. As for what is given with reference to the formless realm: this refers, as it is said, to the four formless attainments. As for what is given with reference to both the desire and form realms: this refers to the passage cited above. As for what is given with reference to both the form and formless realms: this refers, as it is said, to cultivating concentration and what is accomplished through the mind, and the like. As for what is given with reference to all three realms: this refers, as it is said, to the three realms, and the three states of existence, and the like. As for what is given with reference to what transcends all three realms: this refers, as it is said, to nirvāṇa and the noble path, and the like. Now, as for that first scripture they cite, that name-and-form and consciousness mutually serve as condition for one another: this is given with reference to the desire and form realms. Within the formless realm, only name and consciousness mutually serve as condition for one another. Were one to take the meaning exactly as the wording stands, then that same scripture states that the six sense-fields condition contact — does the formless realm, then, fully possess all six sense-fields? And, further, as for the second scripture they cite, that lifespan, warmth, and consciousness are never separated: this, too, is given with reference to the desire and form realms. Within the formless realm, only lifespan and consciousness are mutually never separated. Were one to take the meaning exactly as the wording stands, then that same scripture states that lifespan, warmth, and consciousness, these three, admit of no designation of separation or distinction whatsoever — do these three, then, admit of no designation of separation or distinction with respect to their aggregate, element, or sense-field either? And, further, as for the third scripture they cite, that, apart from form, feeling, perception, and formations, one ought not to speak of consciousness as possessing any coming or going, and the rest: this, too, is given with reference to the desire and form realms.

Within the formless realm, one ought to say that, apart from feeling, perception, and formations, one ought not to speak of consciousness as possessing any coming or going, and the rest. Were one to take the meaning exactly as the wording stands, then, as a further scripture states, every sentient being depends upon food to abide — does the upper two realms, then, likewise rely upon solid food? One asks: how does one reconcile the further, searching difficulty they raise? The answer: this need not be reconciled, since it is not part of the Tripiṭaka. Yet, should it truly need reconciling, its own intent should be shown: with respect to death and rebirth coming and going across the three realms, there may be form continuing into form, or form continuing into the formless, or the formless continuing into the formless, or the formless continuing into form — and it is for this reason that one ought not to say that, once form has been cut off, there exists no meaning by which it could arise again. One asks: if, having become free of form, form should later arise once more, then, once final nirvāṇa has been attained, ought not the formations, too, arise once more? The answer: becoming free of something is of two kinds: first, a temporary freedom; second, an ultimate freedom. As for a temporary freedom: this may indeed give rise to it once more. As for an ultimate freedom: this can certainly never arise again, and it is for this reason that this difficulty ought not to be raised at all. One asks: how do the Vibhajyavādins explain and reconcile the scriptures cited by the Proponents of Correct Reasoning? They speak as follows: the scriptures they cite are of provisional, non-definitive meaning, being a provisional designation with some further intent behind it, for what reason is this so? As for that scripture's own statement that the formless realm transcends form: this speaks of transcending coarse form, not of lacking subtle form — exactly as it is said that the form realm transcends the desires, and yet the form realm is still admitted to possess form; so too, though it is said that the formless realm transcends form, the formless realm ought likewise to be admitted to possess form. The answer to this is: one ought not to speak in this way. It is not said that the form realm transcends form, so that form may indeed still be possessed there; it is said that the formless realm transcends form, and it is for this reason that it ought certainly to possess no form whatsoever. Further, exactly as the form realm is said to transcend desire, and yet subtle desire, too, is absent there, so too, since the formless realm is said to transcend form, subtle form, too, ought to be absent there. Further, the form realm possesses no coarse feeling and the rest — ought one, then, to say that it, too, is a realm without feeling and the rest? Further, the form realm's own form is subtler than the desire realm's own — ought one, then, to say that the form realm, too, is named formless? The lower three formless attainments are coarser than the peak of existence — ought one, then, to say that the lower three are named the realm of form? It is for this reason that what they state certainly does not accord with principle — they are, moreover, incapable of reconciling every further scripture and difficulty raised, and it should thereby be understood that the Vibhajyavādins,

are the fruit of ignorance, the fruit of darkness, the fruit of not-knowing, and the fruit of failing to exert diligent effort, in stating that the formless realm still possesses subtle form — and yet the formless realm possesses no form whatsoever. It is in order to put a stop to what this other school maintains, and to display one's own school's own correct meaning — not merely to put a stop to another and display one's own statement, but also to display the correct principle of the dharmas, causing others to understand it — that this treatise is composed.